Friday, May 30, 2014

By Jason ZiedenbergThe two big trends to watch in American youth justice policy have focused on
reducing youth incarceration, and moving young people from adult prisons and
jails into a reformed youth justice system.These are positive trends that the field needs to build on, but it’s too
soon to pop the champagne. Too many states still have direct file laws on the
books where youth automatically end up in the adult system by their charge,
Raise-the-Age efforts in a couple of states are slow to take hold, and as
budget-strained states close youth facilities, the field faces new challenges
in building, funding and sustaining the continuum needed to meet young people’s
needs.These challenges should not be seen as roadblocks in places like New York, California,
North Carolina, Texas,
Florida
and a dozen other states where large parts of the reform agenda have yet to be
fulfilled. If these states are looking for yet one more example that our
broader youth justice vision can be achieved, you need only to go “north.”In 2003, the Canadian federal government replaced the antiquated Youth
Offenders Act — Canada’s equivalent of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act — with a new law. Under the Youth
Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), the 10 provinces and two territories sought to
implement a youth justice vision that recognizes young people’s unique adolescent
development needs, divert youth from the justice system and meet their needs
through other youth serving systems, expand the options that could serve as
alternatives to youth prisons and improve rehabilitation and re-entry services
for those few youth in locked custody. The provinces received modest
funding from the federal government to implement the new law, but the 10
provinces were largely left to align their work with the YCJA on their own
dime.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Having helped lead the Washington, D.C. Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) – the city’s juvenile corrections agency
— I know, first hand from my experience running that system and from my
colleagues around the country that, Washington, D.C. can and should
serve youth who are currently being transferred to the adult system in
the juvenile justice system, rather than see them jailed and locked up
in the adult system.

The report showed that 541 young people under the age of 18
were detained or incarcerated in adult facilities in D.C. between 2007
and 2012 and that youth spent 10,000 days – the equivalent of 27 years –
in adult jail. The young people who end up on this path experience
inadequate facilities, higher risk of being victimized while locked up,
increased chances of solitary confinement, and often carry the long-term
consequences of adult felony convictions when they leave the system. We
also know from decades of research, including by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention that transfer to adult court actually
increases recidivism, with youth prosecuted as adults more likely to
commit crimes upon release than similar youth handled in the juvenile
system.

Friday, May 9, 2014

It is well known
that the United States incarcerates more of its population than any other
country. Despite the harsh punishments and mandatory sentences for many crimes,
recidivism rates remain high. If a criminal justice system that relies
primarily on punitive measures to reduce crime rates, but instead results in such high rates of
recidivism, there is clearly something wrong with that system. In order to find
a solution to this problem, policymakers and others may need to look beyond the
borders of the United States.

JPI’s report
Finding Direction: Expanding
Criminal Justice Options by Considering Policies of Other Nations, shows
the many advantages that exist in looking to other nations for possible
solutions to the problems of our own criminal justice system. Doing so, allows
fresh insight into current policies and offers alternative policy solutions to
key issues. JPI’s report also found that the sentencing policies in the United
States are harsher than those countries in comparison. With current sentencing
laws being a leading driver to the US’s mass incarceration problem, these laws merit
greater scrutiny.

With the
passing of the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984, the United States experienced an incredible increase in
its prison population. Retribution became the driving factor behind sentencing
with an increased emphasis on people serving the entirety of their punishment
with few programs to promote rehabilitation. It is this vindictive mentality
that sets the United States apart from many other nations.